Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises is a complete reboot of the Joker-Batman dynamic, and it doesn't used scenes from Tim Burton's Batman to complete the film.

The Joker isn't even so much as mentioned in the film.

You know he means The Dark Knight. Don't be obnoxious.

__________________'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'

Yeah, it passed from "homage" (Keeping Khan is enough of an homage) to rip off then.

Rip off or not, I really enjoyed the "Into Darkness" take on the scene. Actually, I think the "Into Darkness" was the more emotionally resonant one.

Whether they ripped it off or not, they played it pitch perfect.

Personally, I found the STID version had no emotional resonance since the entire time I'm thinking of "Wow, they're doing this? Seriously?" It's an inferior imitation of one of Star Trek's greatest scenes.

Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)

Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

The Wormhole wrote:

BillJ wrote:

Charles Phipps wrote:

Yeah, it passed from "homage" (Keeping Khan is enough of an homage) to rip off then.

Rip off or not, I really enjoyed the "Into Darkness" take on the scene. Actually, I think the "Into Darkness" was the more emotionally resonant one.

Whether they ripped it off or not, they played it pitch perfect.

Personally, I found the STID version had no emotional resonance since the entire time I'm thinking of "Wow, they're doing this? Seriously?" It's an inferior imitation of one of Star Trek's greatest scenes.

Different strokes…I concur with BillJ (and I'm old enough to have seen WOK in the cinema first run, lest anyone think I'm too young to appreciate older movies). I quite like WOK but STiD has nothing to feel inferior over in comparison--for me. I don't expect everyone to feel that way, of course, but I've yet to talk to anyone (as opposed to post online) who viewed it differently than I did in any significant fashion. So that's one set of anecdotes offset by another.

Yeah, it passed from "homage" (Keeping Khan is enough of an homage) to rip off then.

Rip off or not, I really enjoyed the "Into Darkness" take on the scene. Actually, I think the "Into Darkness" was the more emotionally resonant one.

Whether they ripped it off or not, they played it pitch perfect.

Personally, I found the STID version had no emotional resonance since the entire time I'm thinking of "Wow, they're doing this? Seriously?" It's an inferior imitation of one of Star Trek's greatest scenes.

The first time I watched the movie, I hated it. Hated, hated it. Totally took me out of the moment.

The second time I saw that it did fit in the context of the movie and actually worked quite well as a scene, but any emotional impact had long since been trampled into the ground...

__________________www.moviebreadbin.com
Movie reviews sponsored by that toupee that Patrick Stewart had sent over from London that time.

I'd just like everyone who loves nuTrek to stop telling me how fresh everything is. This reboot features the same goddamn tropes and plot points everyone complained were dragging down storytelling in the Prime universe ten years ago. At the end of the day, STID was basically a pastiche of TWoK and TUC, and they even managed to throw in TSFS at the last minute. There's nothing wrong with making a pastiche, and it's nice that Star Trek is in the spotlight again, but don't tell me the Prime universe was devoid of new stories or that what Abrams has done represents necessary change.

I'd just like everyone who loves nuTrek to stop telling me how fresh everything is.

If you can provide a detailed list of all posts in which people have told you directly that everything in nuTrek is fresh, I'll ask them if they wouldn't mind terribly not telling you that anymore. If they're only stating an opinion generally, however, there's not a great deal I'll be able to do for you.

Quantum_Penguin wrote:

...but don't tell me the Prime universe was devoid of new stories or that what Abrams has done represents necessary change.

Pretty much the same applies here. 'Cause people stating opinions about stuff is something which tends to happen here a lot.

__________________One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie
is that a cat has only nine lives. — Mark Twain

Yeah, it passed from "homage" (Keeping Khan is enough of an homage) to rip off then.

Rip off or not, I really enjoyed the "Into Darkness" take on the scene. Actually, I think the "Into Darkness" was the more emotionally resonant one.

Whether they ripped it off or not, they played it pitch perfect.

It's phoney emotionalism. The only reason it works is because people play back the scene from Khan in their heads. It doesn't stand on its own, nor does it suit a story of two glorified cadets who have barely really gotten to bond.

The first time I watched the movie, I hated it. Hated, hated it. Totally took me out of the moment.

The second time I saw that it did fit in the context of the movie and actually worked quite well as a scene, but any emotional impact had long since been trampled into the ground...

This is the stockholm syndrome at work. It's the sort of thing people who are uber-fans of bands say when they buy a so-so album, but don't want to admit to themselves that it's so-so. They play it over and over again until they will-themselves into liking it.

If something is good, it's gonna seem good the very first time around.

It's phoney emotionalism. The only reason it works is because people play back the scene from Khan in their heads. It doesn't stand on its own, nor does it suit a story of two glorified cadets who have barely really gotten to bond.

Oh come on. Putting aside Kirk, who for all we know had a college degree under his belt and came to the Academy basically as an OCS prospect, Spock is far from a glorified cadet. He was already at least a Lt. Commander by the middle of the 1st movie.

I'd just like everyone who loves nuTrek to stop telling me how fresh everything is.

If you can provide a detailed list of all posts in which people have told you directly that everything in nuTrek is fresh, I'll ask them if they wouldn't mind terribly not telling you that anymore. If they're only stating an opinion generally, however, there's not a great deal I'll be able to do for you.

Do I really have to substantiate this in the Trek XI forum?

I don't literally mean everybody thinks everything is fresh and original in NuTrek. I was using hyperbole to express frustration with an opinion I don't agree with. And I fully acknowledge that it is my opinion and mine alone.

Furthermore, I don't only talk about Star Trek only on TrekBBS. "Fresh" or some variant such as "new" or "ground-breaking" are the terms I frequently hear applied to nuTrek in conversations with people in real life. And no, I don't keep a list of conversations where people have expressed a particular opinion to me, nor would I expect anyone else to.

M'Sharak wrote:

Quantum_Penguin wrote:

...but don't tell me the Prime universe was devoid of new stories or that what Abrams has done represents necessary change.

Pretty much the same applies here. 'Cause people stating opinions about stuff is something which tends to happen here a lot.

__________________Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982

Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy

Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

Charles Phipps wrote:

Would Star Trek fans be willing to sit through an explanation of what Ferengi, Klingons, Bajorans, Prophets, Organians, Q, Augments, and so on are?

I'd prefer all future Trek reboots leave out the Ferengi, Bajorans, Prophets, Q, and every other alien created for the Berman-era spinoffs. (And I don't even know what an Augment is. Something from VOY or ENT?)

Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)

Re: Why a reboot was necessary (IMHO)

mos6507 wrote:

BillJ wrote:

Charles Phipps wrote:

Yeah, it passed from "homage" (Keeping Khan is enough of an homage) to rip off then.

Rip off or not, I really enjoyed the "Into Darkness" take on the scene. Actually, I think the "Into Darkness" was the more emotionally resonant one.

Whether they ripped it off or not, they played it pitch perfect.

It's phoney emotionalism. The only reason it works is because people play back the scene from Khan in their heads. It doesn't stand on its own, nor does it suit a story of two glorified cadets who have barely really gotten to bond.

Really? So the people I've talked to who've never seen WOK (yes, there are quite a number of such people--many of whom have seen the latest Trek film) who found the scene compelling--they're what, lying? The scene may not work for you, but you are hardly the arbiter of what works for everyone else.

As for "barely really gotten to bond", how the hell would you know? I "bonded" with my two best friends within weeks of meeting them--to the point where I would have sacrificed just about anything for either of them then (more so today). Kirk and Spock have been "out there" well more than a few weeks and have experienced any number of "bonding moments" to which you are not privy. Who are you to decide how well they've "bonded"? You can decide you don't find it is compellingly portrayed, of course, but your attempt at arbitrarily fixing the amount of time necessary to bond is rather flimsy.

The first time I watched the movie, I hated it. Hated, hated it. Totally took me out of the moment.

The second time I saw that it did fit in the context of the movie and actually worked quite well as a scene, but any emotional impact had long since been trampled into the ground...

This is the stockholm syndrome at work. It's the sort of thing people who are uber-fans of bands say when they buy a so-so album, but don't want to admit to themselves that it's so-so. They play it over and over again until they will-themselves into liking it.

If something is good, it's gonna seem good the very first time around.

Again, perhaps that's true for you. It certainly isn't true for everyone. First time I tasted single malt whisky, I hated it. I now have 23 (at last count) different types in my liquor cabinet. Found my first Guinness revolting. It is now among my favourite beers. Hated REM's music when I first heard it. Now among my favourite bands. Couldn't stand bluegrass music when I first heard it. My collection of bluegrass albums now numbers in the dozens. I could provide more examples if you wish.